| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) rose--
Mr. Blair indicated dissent.
The rowdier Conservative Members get, the more beaten they show themselves to be. [Interruption.] They appear to have a new tactic--to sit there and shout rather than stand and shout. We shall wait and see.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover):
He is losing his temper.
Mr. Blair:
I gather that I am being accused of bad form by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw).
We all know the purpose of the asylum Bill. The former Tory research director, who is now a Conservative candidate, said when he left:
We should be clear in our minds what the real problem is--the real opening for fraud. According to recent parliamentary answers, not a single asylum decision on the fast track has been taken within the seven-day limit; the average is 40 days. The decision on the substantive procedure is meant to take 28 days; it takes, on average, eight months. The appeals procedure is supposed to take nine weeks; it takes 10 months. If we deal with those delays, we shall start to deal with the problem properly.
The Prime Minister denies that that issue is being used to play the race card in any sense. Let the new Bill go to a Standing Committee of the House, so that evidence may be taken and considered, and let it be a genuine consensual exercise in getting at the truth. I am delighted to see that some Conservative Members are nodding at that.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster):
You do not mean a Standing Committee.
Mr. Blair:
It is not an unreasonable proposition. It would be a way to take the issue out of party politics and have it dealt with sensibly and with reason.
I very much hope that we shall hear a pledge in the debate, especially in the light of events of the past couple of weeks, that Nigeria will not be on the list of nations decreed by the Home Office to be free of internal repression.
On housing, the Government have removed the duty to find accommodation for priority homeless households. That duty on local authorities is to be scrapped despite warnings from charities and local authorities of the effects of doing so. It is a cruel and senseless measure, which will harm some of the most vulnerable people in Britain.
Every issue that is now considered by the Government is considered on the following basis. I want to describe the way in which government now works, and I believe that many Conservative Members know, in their heart of hearts, that this is how it now works.
These are the tests that are applied. What can put Labour on the spot? What can squeeze a headline out of tomorrow's papers? What can keep the two wings of the Conservative party together? As a Minister said to a newspaper the other day, it is government by tacking. It is a tawdry, low-life, demeaning exercise in political tactics. It is everything about using government as a propaganda machine and it is nothing about the interests of Britain as a country.
Consider the year since the previous Queen's Speech.
[Interruption.] It is very interesting. Conservative Members all want to shout sedentary interventions, but I do not think that they want to intervene today. No--they do not want to intervene today; they are so pathetic. It is another little game: usually, they intervene; today, they are all going to sit there and shout instead. Why do not they, just for one minute, behave like a Government
instead of a rabble? What is wrong? Do they not dare to stand up today? Is there a problem? It is a little game with the Whips. To think that those people can keep themselves in government for another 18 months--it is a tragedy for this country.
I shall take advantage of the fact that Conservative Members are not going to interrupt me. Let us look at the past year--[Interruption.] Does the former chairman of the Tory party want to intervene? The tactic of not intervening is so bad that I can believe that he might have thought of it. No one wants to intervene--what a pathetic bunch they are.
Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston):
Conservatives recognise convention and tradition. We recognise that during the speeches this afternoon, on this special day, we do not intervene.
Mr. Blair:
First, in that case, Conservative Members broke the convention at least 10 times last year. Secondly, I think that the hon. Lady means the Budget speech, not this one. [Interruption.] Let us break a rule--they can come at me if they want to.
Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe):
As someone who was a one-nation Tory long before I entered the House, I must say that the right hon. Gentleman is not doing much to convince people like me that he has converted.
Mr. Blair:
If the hon. Gentleman considered the current position and policy of the Government on the immigration issue that has just been raised, on Europe, on tackling poverty and on employment, he would probably find that he had a lot more in common with what we say than with what the Government say.
Let us consider the past year since the Queen's Speech. If the BBC were to run a review of the Tories in the past year, it would not know whether to get the news, sport or light entertainment departments to put the compilation together. The country needs to know how the Government are run. Let us consider the Nolan inquiry. There were allegations of sleaze and we were told that there was no need for an inquiry. Then, there was an inquiry and the Government accepted the findings, but their Back Benchers did not like them so the matter was put in the hands of a new committee. There was then a vote--the Government lost the vote, said the vote did not matter and blamed the Whips. That is how the Government conduct their business.
On the issue of the utility bosses--the fat cats--first, there is no need for an inquiry, but the pressure grows so there is a Confederation of British Industry inquiry, and with it the new mantra, "Wait for Greenbury." We wait and the recommendations appear. First, the Government accept them, but when they try to implement them they find that they hit the wrong people--the subject was not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech.
On the subject of arms to Iraq, first, we heard that there was no need for an inquiry but then we were told that there would be an inquiry and that we were to wait for the Scott inquiry. We are still waiting. On the subject of Europe, the Whipless wonders were expelled to darkness for daring to defy the Prime Minister. They were propelled into fame; they were so in demand by the media that they should have paid council tax on
No. 4 Millbank. They were brought back into the fold having conceded nothing, having given up nothing and having won the policy battle.
Sir Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey):
While the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of Europe, will he say whether a Government led by him would join the single European market and retain our controls on immigration?
Mr. Blair:
We are in the European single market and we have made it clear that we shall retain our veto on immigration issues. We have always said that.
As to the family and domestic violence Bill, imagine trying to portray the Lord Chancellor--of all people--as a wild-eyed, anti-family, anti-religious destroyer of all that Britain holds dear. One expected him to turn up eating muesli and wearing sandals. The Government caved into the pressure, but then there was a backlash against the backlash. The Government caved in again and the Bill is back in the Queen's Speech.
"Immigration, an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 Euro-elections campaign, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt."
15 Nov 1995 : Column 17Of course the hurt is done not only to the Labour party. When politics is played with such issues, it causes hurt to many ordinary, decent people in this country who should not be hurt.
We oppose bogus applications and fraud and we recognise the need for immigration controls, but race and immigration should not be the plaything of party politics. Let me suggest to the Prime Minister how the issue may be tackled to ensure that it is not.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |